Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis

Comments

I consider the Marauder a "muscle car" and I truly believe it lives up to the "hype." It's an awesome performer stock. If you need stump-pulling power then it can easily be modded up with a 4.10 gear. IMHO it doesn't need it:

Stock 0-60 timesCar and Driver 7.5Motor Trend 6.89

Really pulls from about 40-120.

I briefly considered a new TBird as well. Very affordable right now compared to when they first came out. Nice little car, but under-powered. No room for my kids, either.

Have you looked at a Crown Vic LX Sport? Resembles the Marauder, is available in lots of colors. I considered it - but ultimately decided to spend a few thousand more on the Mercury. Got a lot more horsepower, torque, and IMHO a lot more car for my money.

I actually like the front of the CV LX Sport slightly better than the Marauder. And, you can get a black exterior with a medium parchment interior, a combination I prefer over black/charcoal. (Saw a GM LSE with parchment buckets next to a Marauder. The parchment interior, to me, looked richer.)

I also favor the regular GM rear end treatment, but without the horizontal chrome trim. As is, the Marauder looks too much like a police car from the rear until you get closer to see the pipes and MARAUDER treatment.

Don't care for silver frost; silver birch is much more appealing, IMHO. A Silver Birch Marauder with blacked out Marauder rear lettering, B-pillar, and vertical grille blades could be real interesting; might even consider a very thin black pinstripe, front to rear.

I guess I'm hung up on Mercury's boasting of 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Some road tests were as "slow" as 8 flat. (I don't get the opportunity to exceed 75-80 mph in the crowded North Jersey area, but I do get the chance to push the 0-? range every now and then.) Just don't care for the idea of beating, or losing, to a Japanese sedan by a few tenths, and I wouldn't risk continuing a race to the 100 mph speed. Insurance in NJ is too expensive even without speeding tickets.

Do you really feel the TBird is under powered? I thought that it was tested 0-60 in 7 flat, and the 2003 could even be a little quicker.

Two seater would work for me. My kids are either married or too old to drive around with mom and dad, anyway. (My daughter has her own 99 Mustang; pretty quick, for a six.)

For the few thousand difference, I'd still go for the Marauder over the CV LX. The CV LX seems like a car that would become "just a car" too soon. Nice package, though.

Dealer told me that the 3K rebate would be applicable assuming that the vehicle was delivered in a month when the rebate is still valid(?).

I didn't know that Mercury claimed 0-60 times of under 6.5 seconds. But it probably wouldn't take much to get there since the Marauder can do it in less than 7 stock.

The Thunderbird "feels" under powered to me. Don't get me wrong. I love it! But I guess I feel about it the way you feel about the Marauder: it doesn't live up to the expectations created by its looks. But I think the 'Bird gets 30 or 50 more horsepower for '03. That should make a difference.

I went to an autoshow in the Jacob Javits arena in NY City. The Marauder (a total disaster; different shades of black) was on display. On a Mercury provided podium was an informational description of the new Mercury muscle car, the Marauder. Along with motor size, horsepower, etc was the following statement "0-60 in 6.5 seconds".

Couldn't be any plainer; it was there, bold as could be.

I have yet to read/see/or listen to a Marauder road test or discussion that agrees with Mercury's claim; Motorweek TV called it, and I quote, "a pussycat off the line".

But, everybody that owns one says they are so fast. Then why are so many buying 4:10 gears and Reinhart chips? I don't want to buy a 28K self proclaimed muscle car and drive to Reinhart motors in Florida to make it run; that's not what I bargained for.

Am I p****d? You bet. I have always liked Mercurys, even when the "kids" of my age were jumping at 442's, GTO's, and Chevelle 396's. I flipped the first time I read a roadtest on the 1969 Cyclone CJ 428. Finally, a Merc that ran!

Fast forward to the present. Here, so I thought, was an American car company bringing us (me) back to the good old days when America ruled the highways, and only strange and weird people bought Datsuns and Toyotas.

(I worked for a Datsun dealer in Leonia, NJ, in the early 60's. While driving a Datsun to the dealership from the Port Elizabeth, NJ docks on a dark, rainy night, the electrical system just died; no lights or windshield wipers st 70 mph on the NJ Turnpike. Great car!! My co-worker bought a Datsun Fairlady, a Datsun sportscar. What a joke.)

The USA used to rule when it came to the automobile market. But, we decided to forget about cars and build Explorers, Durangos, and whatever. So, we lost the car market to the Germans and Japanese. How long before we lose the SUV market?

Yeah, Fords are built in Canada, and Japanese cars are built in the good old USA, but where are the profits going?

Sorry folks, just had to vent. We lost the electronics market, we lost the car market, and we will soon lose the truck (excuse me-SUV) market.

Bordering on OT, but where are the profits going? To the suppliers of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, to their employees, and to the communities where the plants are, in addition to the investors from Japan.

You think "American" cars are built of "American" parts? Hardly. Why even that Marauder you were speaking of is built in Canada. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

And there is a Marauder board here at Edmunds which would be a good place to read and post about the Marauder. This here is the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis Board!

and they're brand new. Recently I found a very slightly used 03 Black Executive Towncar up in Maine for 27 and change in "autotrader.com". I have also heard the 04 TC will have the Aviator engine, but that's 18 months away from getting one for 30k so let's buy the 03 and enjoy now.

Since some parts of the Marauder are likely to filter into "basic" GMs, I'm interested in owners' experiences; good or bad. Right now, I can't justify spending that much money on one, but maybe the lottery gods will shine upon me someday. (I'm not holding my breath.) Meanwhile, it's a Merc. Let 'er rip!

Anyone else buy a new CV or GM lately ? I was hoping to share and receive car experiences, tips , etc on this board, but maybe the GM market IS mostly the Grandparents Market, (non-internet users ? : )

One noticible noise after start up, sounds like an electronic motor running for about 20 seconds. I'm guessing it's the air suspension making load adjustments ? Anyone else have a guess ?

James130 & Genex1, I just went back and read your reviews and I could not agree more, the GM has many pluses. I took it out for some hwy miles to break it in and even at 90 mph, I felt secure about the steering, engine power, and overall saftey of the cargo. Even though I prefer flying to driving, we will be taking our next family trip in the GM and I am actually looking forward to it.

Did a little dealership tire kicking yesterday. (Wife's really getting on me to sell the 89 Towncar; needs about $600 in work, but, damn, that car (except for a bit of wandering) runs/rides like brand new. When I hear that the TC's are 200-300,000 mile cars, I can believe it.)

First, I stopped at an L&M dealer in Clifton, NJ. Every GM (5) in the showroom was decked out with an add-on vinyl top, chrome wheel lip moldings, stainless decorative trim between front/rear wheel wells, and leather interior added to the base 24K GM.

I hate to admit it, but the half roof didn't look bad on the regular GM. Work quality looked pretty good. (Moldings were overkill.)

Then I saw an abomination; a black Marauder with a black half roof and all the moldings mentioned above! Too stunned to even ask the dealer what the hell he was thinking. The only good thing I can say about the modification is that the top shop designed a very attractive circular chrome Mercury god's head emblem that was installed on each sail panel (same place where Lincoln puts the Signature or Cartier emblem). Not as large as the Mercury decklid. ornament, but nice, nevertheless.

Then I went to a Ford dealer that had a sharp LX Sport black/charcoal on his lot with minimal options. Car listed for 28 plus; my price, A plan and $2,500 rebate, $23,500. Very appealing.

Dealer also had one 2003 powder blue TBird; no Ford discount (or rebate) available. Car had the black/white option interior. I noticed that the interior was, design/color-wise, almost identical to my 1958 Thunderbird; black seats/white inserts (even the shape of the seats was similar); black upper doorpanel/white lower trim; only design difference is that my 58's dash is solid black with a lot of chrome.

Are the LX Sport and GM LSE both really dead, except for what's on the dealer lot?

All together, the Merc dealer had seven Marauders in stock including the (ugh) "modified" one. The Merc's about 5K more than the CV LX Sport, but seems to have a lot more options in addition to the drivetrain. For 5K difference, I'd rather have the Marauder, but I don't know if my wife could get used to the stiffer ride.

Wow. You do sound pretty angry. I didn't see the exhibit that you did, but I'll take your word for it.

And not to beat a dead horse: but the car is fast. I don't want to make excuses for Mercury, but I can see how that 6.5 time COULD have come about.

If a car mag can get a stock, "green" Marauder to 60 MPH in 6.89 seconds, it might be possible for a professional driver to get a properly prepared Marauder to 60 in 6.5. After all, we're talking about advertising or marketing here. It's not unusual for car companies to do things like ice down intakes, use racing octane gas, etc. Do their advertised performance numbers ever match up to the real world?

But even if the time you saw posted is a lie, the car is still fast. Stock Marauders are running high 14's at 95 plus in the 1/4 mile. With a top speed of between 119-125 (depending on who you ask) limited - and over 140 unlimited.

I don't see how you can complain. It is what it is. It's much faster than either my 97 4.6 'Bird, or '94 'Stang GT. In fact, the only thing that comes close is the 429 Ford XL I drove as a teen ager.

Some years back, A PA couple sold their home, furniture, etc., & spent all the profits trying to cover every possible combination of numbers. Need I say what they won? A few tickets hit to the tune of several hundred dollars.

A college prof once calculated what it would take to buy every possible combination. It would take a wealthy person who had a lot of $$$ of his own or a lot of wealthy friends. If you're already wealthy, there are surer methods of making more money. Probably, tax free methods.

Anyone waiting to win a lottery to pay for a Maurader will need an awful lot of luck as well as a long lifespan.

"Ugggly," like "beauty," is in the eye of the beholder. My CO in the Army had a pink '57 Olds 98. He thought it was "ugggly," but his wife loved it. After he'd had a few beers, though, the car looked a lot prettier to him.

Sounds like another media fanatic who likes to take a small sound bite and run with it.

Any car goes boom if hit by a drunk at 80. And it's not the same sitiation as the Pinto. Those would possibly burn if the gas cap was missing, but it was never proven to be faulty. Look it up and I dare anyone to rear end a similar vintage Vega or Gremlin and see if it is safe.

My understanding of the lottery (the topic, Rob, the Topic!) is that if the odds are, say, 1 in 15 million, there are 15 million combinations of numbers, and only one that will win. So to buy all 15 million at a dollar a pop, you'd need 15 million dollars. And if the jackpot was 8 or 10 million, you'd be going in the hole. So you let the jackpot climb above the odds, say to 30 million, buy all 15 million dollars in tickets, and you've doubled your money on just the 30 million jackpot, not to mention all the smaller prizes you'd get for matching 3, 4, or 5 numbers. Of course, just the act of physically buying 15 million lottery tickets could take a while, so....

What this has to do with the Grand Marquis, I'm still trying to figure out....

A few years back someone did buy every chance in a $100 million drawing.

It was an extremely well planned project involving many people that would purchase their designated series of numbers. The main trick was having all these people get all their tickets before the drawing. The article said to get their tickets, it would take hours at the "7-11" and many had to go back to the end of the line (they were holding up other people interested in the "big" pot), to complete their series of numbers.The second risk was how many winnners there would be as iusecad said. The break even point for this lottery was maybe 5 to 6 people. Of course if there was only the 1 winner, they did Great !Well, there turned out to be ~ 4 winners, if I remember right, and the group made some money.However, when asked if they would do it again, they said no, because the risk & thought of not covering every ticket in the process did not warrant what they made.

BTW, I can't believe the Host monitoring this thread has not stopped these Off-The-Subject posts ?! Edmunds seems to be so tight on other threads.

The last model year I saw a true Crown Victoria or Grand Marquis made was the 1991 model year. Starting the following model year, they were shrunk. It is in body length and passenger room.

I have parked my mid-size Marquis Brougham beside both that are still classified as full-size. The body lengths and passenger rooms are the same. But the Marquis Brougham is called mid-size. The current Grand Marquis and Crown Victorias are classified as full-size. The only thing bigger on those are their wheels and engine.

It seems there is no longer a true full-size car. It includes these 2 models. I would like to see the true full-size brought back. I hope it is. It is these 2 models.

"The current Grand Marquis and Crown Victorias are classified as full-size. The only thing bigger on those are their wheels and engine."

Actually, the engines are smaller. The 4.6 Liter engine used in all Crown Vics, Grand Marquis, Marauders, and Town Cars (did I miss any variations?) all equal 280.3 cubic inches, which Ford gratuitously fudges up to 281 on the spec sheets. In previous years, the cars have used 302 and 351 cubic inch engines. A few 255 cubic inch V-8's were offered for a couple of years in the early 80's, but there are without a doubt the worst V-8's Ford ever made, are very rare, and nobody wants them. I pray every one of them got melted down to make rebar or something. Back in the 70's, 351, 400, 429, and even 460 cubis inch engines were offered. Engines in the "full size" cars, like the cars themselves, are shrinking.

That being said, the 92-03 Crown Vics and Grand Marquiss are built on the same chassis and suspension (more or less. They make improvements over the years) as the '79-'91 models, and have comperable interior space. What they don't have is the square, formal styling that the older cars have, and the more contemporary, "rounded-off" look makes the cars seem smaller than their predecessors, when in reality they are the same size. If you wan the last of the "real" full size cars, you have to go all the way back to 1978, when the cars actually were considerably bigger, and could still be ordered with the massive 460 CID V-8. Just be sure you've paid up your gas card before you buy one!

I own a Kelley Blue Book which lists the body lengths of both the 1991 and 1992 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. The 1992's have a shorter body length. And they have no more passenger room than my 1985 Marquis Brougham with a fuel-injected 3.8L V6 which is classified as mid-size. The 1991's on the other hand had a longer body and more passenger and leg room. And they were equipped with a standard fuel-injected 5.0L V8 and were available with an optional 2-barrel carburetor 5.8L V8. And they were made more solid. 1991 was the last year they had steel bumpers. So, starting with the 1992's, they were made weaker. That is worse. It is why the 1992's required air bags and the 1991's did not.

Not only has the national news tested cars with steel bumpers with full frames vs. those with plastic bumpers with box-style frames in head-on collisions, front-end collisions and rear-end collisions. But I have seen the difference between my 1985 Marquis Brougham with steel bumpers in a front-end collision due to a deer vs. a 2001 Crown Victoria that had been in a front-end collision. Both were repaired simultaneously at the same auto body shop. The 2001 Crown Victoria had sustained more damage. Its front plastic bumper was smashed, as was its grille. Neither was on my 1985 Marquis Brougham. The auto body mechanic does not call that with the 2001 Crown Victoria "better". He said the same thing the national news has. It is worse. It is weaker materials that cost more.

The last true full-length full-size Ford product was the Lincoln Town Car, which was revised and shrunk down after the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was discontinued. It is down to the same length and passenger seating and leg room as the current Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. It is except the longer Cartier version.

Actually, I also drove a 1986 Crown Victoria with a fuel-injected 5.0L V8 that got as much as 30 MPG. I have not seen that yet with the "improved" 1992-2003 Crown Victorias. I do not call that "improvement".

Made more solid and heavy, they had no need for features like traction or stability control. The newer ones made lighter and weaker do. I do not call it progress. I call it regress.

Following the Crown Vics and Grand Marquis since they first came out, the boy lengths and seating and leg room remained the same through the 1991 model year. The only change made were smaller engines. The same goes with the Town Cars through the 1996 model year. I know. I drove a 1994. It was the same length and had the same seating and leg room as my 1976 LTD Brougham. The only thing smaller on the 1994 Town Car was its V8. The 1976 LTD had a 400 C.I.D. V8. It got 20 MPG. The 1994 Town Car had a smaller 4.6L V8. It got less than 20 MPG.

Improvements? The only improvements I have seen are the back seat end shoulder straps and 4-wheel ABS. But I see no other. It is yet.

If you want to claim the 1992-2003 ones have been improved, tell someone who is not as knowledgable about them as I am. It is all I have.

Yes. The 1992-2003 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis have a bigger engine and bigger tires than my 1985 Marquis Brougham. But the bodies and seating and leg room are no bigger. It means they are smaller than the 1991 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis.

I like how you try to twist my words, rea98d. It sounds like you will lie and try to say anything to dishonestly sell a 1992-2003 Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis. Remind me not to buy one off you! It is if I buy one.

...the '83-86 Marquis/LTD are on the Fox platform, which originated with the compact Fairmont/Zephyr from 1978. In 1981, a guzzied up, formalized version came out, sporting the Granada and Cougar nameplates. While it served as Ford's midsized car in '81-82, it had the exact same dimensions inside as the Fairmont/Zephyr. In 1983, the LTD/Marquis took over, basically just a swoopier Granada, but the same amount of room inside. One difference though, was that the sloped-off rear end did cut into trunk room a bit, so an '83 LTD/Marquis would actually have a bit less trunk space than an '82 Granada or an '83 Fairmont.

The '91 and the '92 Crown Vic are the same car underneath. The '92 just has a more aerodynamic body. They're both still classified as full-sized cars.

According to http://www.fueleconomy.org, the '85 LTD/Marquis has 97 cubic feet of interior room, and 15 cubic feet of trunk space. The '91 and '92 full-sized Crown Vic/Grand Marquis are both rated at 111 cubic feet interior, 21 cubic feet of trunk space. It is all I know. I hope this helps.